PATCH /contract/end/:id (Contract)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the tool applies to active contracts and can update end dates, and includes an example body. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether associated reservations are affected) or behavior beyond the stated action, which is minimally additive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence stating purpose followed by a compact JSON example. No extraneous information, and the key action is front-loaded. Every element serves a purpose without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and example body but omits important context: required vs optional subfields, possible values for reasonId, effect of unlinkCustomer, and expected response. The lack of behavioral details beyond the example leaves gaps for the agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the body parameter's schema only references the description. The description adds meaning by listing three fields (date, reasonId, unlinkCustomer) with an example, helping the agent construct the request. However, it lacks explanations of each field's semantics, constraints, or defaults, so not fully compensatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool ends an active contract or updates its end date ('Encerra um contrato ativo ou atualiza a data de encerramento'). This differentiates it from siblings like delete_contract (permanent deletion) and update_contract (general updates), making the purpose specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this to end a contract without deleting it' or contrast with delete_contract or update_contract. The description only states the action without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.